Jeff Sessions Opening Remarks at Kagan Hearing Video

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) listed an astounding number of violations of Federal law committed by Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. I am at a loss to understand how Democrats will find this woman, who has spent her professional life in activism, with complete disdain for the U.S. Constitution, qualified for this life-time position. The fact that she will end up on the Supreme Court and my children and grandchildren will live with her lack of integrity and contempt for the Rule of Law is heartbreaking. See the video below.

Elena Kagan

Here are a few of Sessions comments (paraphrased):

Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years.

Not only has she not been a judge, she has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration that I think real legal understanding occurs.

Kagan has never tried a case before a jury

She argued her first appellate case just 9 months ago. There is no substitute of being in the harness of the law, handling real cases over a period of law.

Kagan has spent her career in policy and politics, mixed with law.

Her college thesis, Socialism in New York, bemoan socialism's demise.

Her Master's thesis noted the activist tendencies of the Earl Warren court - but said it could have done a better job justifying their activism.

Kagan left law for 5 years for politics.

Kagan was central figure in the White House Clinton-Gore effort to restrict gun rights.

She was the point person for the Clinton Administration effort to block Congressional restriction on partial birth abortions - the key person to convince Clinton to change his mind from supporting restrictions to opposing legislation that would ban it.

While at Harvarvd as the Dean, she reversed existing policy, and kicked military out of recruiting offices in violation of federal law. She punished our Military and demeaned our soldiers as they fought in two wars overseas.

Kagan joined 3 other law school Deans to write a letter in response to Senator Grahams legislation to establish procedures to determine who was an enemy combatant in the war on terror. She compared this legislation, which passed 84 to 14 as fundamentally the same as the lawless actions of a dictatorship. Gr

As Solicitor General for 1 year, her short tenure was not without controversy. In her first appellate argument that speech and press guarantees of First Amendment would allow Federal Gov't to ban publications and pamphlets discussing political issues before an election. [Session reminds her of Thomas Paines Common Sense]

As Solicitor General, Kagan approved filing of a brief  to SCOTUS asking that it strike down provisions of the legal Arizona Workers Act which suspends or revokes the businesses licenses of corporations which knowingly hire illegal aliens, even though Federal law expressly prohibits such hiring. She did this even after the liberal 9th Circuit upheld the law.

There is much more. I hope you will listen to the video. If you believe Kagan should be confirmed, please ask yourself why you want a judge who will attempt to change, at least the First and Second Amendments, refuse to define an enemy combatant and abort late-term babies?


Senator Sessions Opening Remarks at Kagan Confirmation (video)

Oh Dang! Specter may tack Right

Defeated Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), who won't be coming back to the Senate after this session is hinting that he may begin voting more like a Republican than a Democrat:

...several longtime friends and associates tell The Daily Beast that without a primary challenge to pressure him, the veteran senator - a famously prickly character whose temper has earned him the nickname "Snarlin' Arlen" - may shift to the right

The big question seems to be, will Specter vote for Elena Kagan's confirmation? Of course he will. Duh!

H/T to Hot Air

Andy Stern Resigns SEIU: Speculating on Andy Sterns Resignation from SEIU

What incredible news. Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the man who tops the White House "most visited list," who was just appointed to Obama's "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" commission and now enjoys a revolving door to the White House without signing the visitor's log, the man who didn't bother going stealth to work-up Obama's plan to exempt Unions from full health care costs, the man who says "he is wired to the White House," will announce that he will retire as SEIU's president in 2012.

 Andy Stern

Stern is allegedly saying he has outlived his usefulness. Well, I don't know about you, but I didn't just start paying attention today. This is not about Stern outliving his usefulness. I don't know what it is "about," but whatever it is, it includes Barack Obama.

Speculations are rife - even that Stern is being considered for Justice Stevens Supreme Court seat. Unlikely, Stern is not an attorney (or at least I cannot find confirmation that he is), but then according to the U.S. Constitution, having a law degree is not mandatory for a seat on SCOTUS, although every past Justice has been an attorney. Maybe that suggestion is a "joke" in the traditional sense.

Michelle Malkin asks if the separation Stern brought about between the AFL-CIO and SEIU, will now re-merge, and if Richard Trumka, new AFL-CIO head has anything to do with Stern's departure?

Stern once said:

We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn't work, we try the persuasion of power." 

Stern is stepping down without making "Card Check" law. Perhaps once out of the glare of the President's spotlight, he can concentrate on Card Check by directing some targeted persuasion toward Conservative kneecaps.

He is under investigaton for a possible violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and it should be a very, very big deal. Click the link to read some of Stern's tweets.

Or perhaps he plans to protect SEIU's substantial investment in community organizing and resurrect the glory days of ACORN.


Linked by Reaganite Republican - Thanks James!

Jon Kyle on Filibuster of Obama SCOTUS Nominee: GOP Filibuster of SCOTUS Nominee?

Justice John Paul Stevens has sent signals that he will be retiring soon. He hired only one law clerk, when the usual number is four. Both sides are gearing up for a fight for the future of America. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was on FOXNews Sunday today with Chris Wallace. Wallace asked Kyl if the GOP will filibuster the next Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) nominee. Kyl responded that it would depend on the nominee and his/her view of law. (see the video below)

Jon Kyle

Senator Kyl said if the nominee was not overly ideological, Republicans might vote against the nominee, but would likely not filibuster, going back to the Gang of 14's rule that you do not filibuster unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

[Kyl] I want a judge who will read the law and declare it in each case that comes before him or her as it should be — in other words, don’t have somebody coming in with preconceived attitudes — I’m going to be tough on the executive, or, I’m going to be for the little guy, or whatever their preconceived attitudes are. We’ve had too much of that. [...]

I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test. And if he doesn’t nominate someone who is overly ideological, I don’t think — you may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don’t think you’ll see them engage in a filibuster.

KYL: I would prefer to go back to the situation where it is not done by either party, but the Democrats won that fight. They filibustered Miguel Estrada. He never got on the court. Seven other circuit nominees. So what we need to do is, I think, apply the rule that the Gang of 14 game up with a couple years ago that you don’t filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances, and I’m willing to live by that general rule. 

Kyl gave a succinct answer to why a filibuster might be appropriate, or not, and it is all about ideology. He makes Senator Arlen Specter look like the Liberal he is. This is a good video.



Senator Jon Kyle and Chris Wallace on FoxNewsSunday (video)

Idaho Signs Law to Sue Fed for Health Care Mandates: 37 States to Follow

Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a law today requiring the state attorney general to sue the Federal government if Idaho residents are forced to buy federally mandated and qualified health insurance. Thirty-seven other states have similar legislation pending, but according to this, constitutional law experts say federal laws supersede those of the states.

I'm thinking those "constitutional law experts" are Democrats. The Heritage Foundation did an exhaustive review of this issue and the bottom line came down to the necessity for the Supreme Court to create a new constitutional doctrine, in order for Congress to have the power to enforce the mandate. Read the arguments for the unconstitutionality of mandated health care here.

Justice John Roberts on Obama Complaint from SOTU Presidential Podium

In an unprecedented move from the Presidential podium, Obama took the Supreme Court to task over a recent decision handed down involving campaign financing during his January State of the Union (SOTU) address. It was a disgraceful move on such an important night, in front of the Nation. The dam broke this week, when Chief Justice of the U.S. John Roberts answered a question from a student at University of Alabama Law School about the President's dress-down of his Court. Our pouty, thin-skinned, irritable White House felt compelled to put the Chief Justice in his place, which is obviously deemed below the Executive Branch - making astonishing news to our Founders, were they here to hear it. See videos below.

Justice John Roberts

Here is the answer from Roberts. You can hear the student's question in the first video below:

Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Our President knows no economy of words. The White House lashed right back today. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said this:

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

The following remarks from the President are what started these exchanges: (see the second video below and note the reaction of Justice Samuel Alito)

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

Justice Clarence Thomas refuses to attend the State of the Union. Judge Samuel has stayed away at times. Perhaps they won't be so foolish to do so in the future. Perhaps they will stay home and watch the address from the comfort of their own living room. After all, they are not compelled to present themselves to the President at this event. Here is a snippet of Justice Thomas' comment after Obama's very public SOTU assault:

"I don't go because it has become so partisan," he said, "and it's very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there. There's a lot that you don't hear on TV: The catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments. One of the consequences is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It's just an example of why I don't go."

This administration has no respect for Rule of Law. Obama didn't even respect his own grandmother. His egomaniacal-self, along with his Brat Pack advisers, trip over themselves to show deference to select foreign dignitaries, some Democrats, ACORN and all Unions, but believes our Constitution is a toy to be tinkered with...simply because he wants to. I hope the Justices stay home next time.



Chief Justice Roberts on Obama Admonishment of Supreme Court (video)




President Obama and Justice Samuel Alito at State of the Union (video)

Thanks to The Lonely Conservative for the video

Campaign Finance Law Under Supreme Court Scrutiny

In a Supreme Court summer session termed "unusual," campaign finance laws will receive the Court's scrutiny.

Supreme Court

In the spotlight is the McCain-Feingold provisions for spending limits by corporations and unions. The question: is it constitutional to limit corporate political spending?

The court is reaching out to decide the foundational question about the rights of corporations in political campaigns," said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School. "It's the last step in several incremental moves the Roberts Court has made to strike down the pillars of campaign-finance law."

Since the court largely upheld McCain-Feingold in 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted with the majority in that opinion, has retired and been replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, who has voted to limit certain aspects of McCain-Feingold in prior cases.

The subject that took me the above Wall Street Journal post was: Decisions Indicate Supreme Court Moved Rightward This Term. Being the scholar that I am not, I don't see that conclusion, but whatever....With our government in Democrat hands, and one or more judges perhaps retiring after Justice Breyer, any move to the right is probably temporary. I did find a very interesting piece at the SCOTUS Blog. Written by Tom Goldstein, he talks about the appropriate way in which Justice Roberts is leading the court into measured decisions that will be unimpeachable:

It is reinforcing its own legitimacy with opinions that later can be cited to demonstrate that it is not rapidly or radically changing the law. This approach may be in the starkest relief if next Term the Court cites its recent decision in Wisconsin Right to Life as precedent for concluding that McConnell v. FEC and Austin v. Michigan have been significantly undermined and should be overruled. The plurality and concurrence in Wisconsin Right to Life famously debated how aggressively the Court should go in overruling prior campaign finance precedent. The Chief Justice urged patience – not moving more quickly than required – and the wait may not have been long.

About Justice Roberts:

Overgeneralizing broadly, conservatives believe that doctrines like substantive due process, the exclusionary rule, and a high wall separating church and state aren’t merely wrong but overstep the limited role of judges and endanger the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Turning back those decisions, in turn, is thought to (among other things) enhance respect for the Court. The Chief’s professional life is defined by the Court — as a clerk, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, private practitioner, and now the Chief Justice — and his institutional commitment to it, including ensuring that it is regarded as an institution of integrity rather than a political football (see my earlier post on the Ricci opinion) — is profound. But that perspective – when taken by a thoughtful judge who has the long view – also counsels in favor of moving at a measured pace. If the Court instead were to announce in rapid succession the overruling of its prior decisions permitting regulation of campaign contributions, guaranteeing a right to an abortion, and finding affirmative action consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, then the public would likely be left with the impression that constitutional law is nothing more than a power play between competing ideologies that reflect nothing more than the happenstance of the most recent appointments.

Read the entire article at SCOTUS Blog. From the BLT (The Blog of Legal Times) we learn how a few of the Justices will spend a portion of their summer:

July will also find Justice Samuel Alito Jr. teaching in Innsbruck, Austria at St. Mary's University School of Law's summer program there. Last year, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. taught in the same program and was paid $15,000, according to his recently released financial disclosure form. Speaking of Roberts, he is scheduled to teach a course in July on the history of the Supreme Court at the New England School of Law program in Galway, Ireland.

Around the same time, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is scheduled to teach in Rome, hosted by Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, for his part, will return to Salzburg, Austria for his 20th straight year, teaching in McGeorge School of Law's summer program. Last year, McGeorge paid him $21,700. In August, Kennedy is also due to speak at the Chautauqua Institution's famed summer program in New York.

So for now, we have an "unusual" Supreme Court summer session called for September 9th to look into McCain-Feingold Campagin Finance Law. Much needed scrutiny, in my opinion.

Sotomayor Hearing July 13: Sessions Argues for More Time

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings on her appointment to the Supreme Court are scheduled to begin July 13th, much sooner than Republicans are comfortable with.

Supreme Court of the United States

In the video below, Senator Jeff Sessions lays out how President Bush's nominees, Justices Roberts and Alito were handled - and it wasn't with any haste, even though the Supreme Court seats need to be filled, and even though Justice Roberts had a much shorter paper trail to examine. Paraphrasing Sessions: Sotomayor has a record of more than 4,000 cases, many speeches and law review articles, which need to be analyzed before confirming a judge for a lifetime appointment. Judge Roberts confirmation hearings took 55 days to begin from the day of his nomination. For Justice Alito, 70 days passed. Sotomayor is being ramped-up to 48 days if the date of July 13th holds over Republican objections. Senator Patrick Leahy see no difference in the 55 days for Roberts and the 48 days for Sotomayor, even though there are countless documents to read in the Sotomayor case. Leahy reasons it this way:

There is no reason to unduly delay consideration of this well-qualified nominee,” Leahy said. “Indeed, given the attacks on her character, there are compelling reasons to proceed even ahead of this schedule. She deserves the earliest opportunity to respond to those attacks.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has another viewpoint:

I’m not sure we’ll be ready,” said Coburn, who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “If I’m ready to attend, I will attend. If I’m not, I won’t.” Asked if he’d skip the hearing if he felt rushed, Coburn said: “I’m certainly not going to ask questions if I’m not prepared.

By virtue of Sonia Sotomayor's own words, she is under the suspicion of holding racist views (racism about Whites), and that what Leahy refers to as "attacks on her character." Why there would only be a "suspicion" about her racist viewpoint, when it's as clear as daylight, is ridiculous. She has even tried to backpedal, and the White House has attempted to do the same, and say that she would couch her words differently today if she had the opportunity. Then there was the first excuse that she "misspoke." She didn't misspeak and she wouldn't do it diffrently unless she had to, and we know this because she repeated the remark some seven times in her career that we know of.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life

What? Is the white male chopped liver? To Sotomayor, her "female, wise Latina soul" is weightier than a Caucausian "American male soul," and probably the same for an American female soul. This woman should not be on the Supreme Court. By the way, she also believes felons should have the right to vote. Senator Jeff Sessions

Tracked by: Supreme Court Nominee Not So Nimble, Fractures Ankle Excerpt: Read more about this nominee and her upcoming maiden hearing in front of congress at Maggie's Notebook by clicking here.Weblog: Chicago Ray's News Views Tracked: 06.10.09 - 1:18 am

Sonia Sotomayor Death Penalty: "Racist," Violates "Humanist" Thinking

Did Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, fail to disclose to the Senate Judiciary committee that she has argued that the death penalty is "racist," and that it violates the "humanist" thinking of society?

Sonia Sotomayor

According to this report, she did just that in a memorandum in 1981. So perhaps there are two issues here: a) she didn't disclose this written opinion as required and 2) she see the death penalty as "racist" and against "humanist thinking."

JCN (Judicial Confirmation Network) Counsel Wendy Long sent a letter Friday to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and members of the committee arguing that Sotomayor had not properly complied with this requirement because she had not submitted the 1981 memo on capital punishment. “It is . . . clear that (Sotomayor) has omitted controversial material from her past in which she asserts that '[c]apital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society' and advocated public opposition to restoring the death penalty in New York state,” Long wrote to the committee

The memo is to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and is from the Task Force of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund which included Sotomayor. The memo rendered an opinion on a Bill to Restore the Death Penalty in New York State. The memo says the Task Force "reviewed major literature about the issue of the death penalty and found there was an impressive array of highly respectable organizations which have taken a public position opposed to restoration of the death penalty. A summary of the memo's points supporting the "public position" of opposition are as follows. Note that some is word-for-word and some is my paraphrase. Follow the link here to a pdf of the memo or to the transcription:

1) The death penalty is final and eliminates all possibility of reform of the offender. The possibility of mistaken identity is discussed. 2) The evidence for capital punishment as a deterrent of crime is unconvincing. 3) Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society. A breakdown by percentage of ethnicity's on death row is given. 4) The problem of crime and violence in American society is so complex, it is unreasonable to think that capital punishment will result in preventing it or diminishing it. 5) Our present perspective on the meaning of our values in the Judeo-christian tradition, and the state of humanistic thinking in the world judge capital punishment as a violation of those values. 6) It is counter-productive [sic] we inflict death on the offender to manifest our opposition to his inflicting death on another. 7) It creates inhuman psychological burdens for the offender and is/her family. 8) It becomes involved in lengthy legal procedures, and makes more difficult a process of more rapid enforcement of more benign forms of punishment. The memo ends with: In view of the broad consensus of representative religious and civic organizations, and in view of the rationale presented in opposition to Capital Punishment, the Task Force recommends that the Fund take a public position in opposition to the restoration of the Death Penalty in New York State.

The memo is signed by three persons, one of which is Sonia Sotomayor. I'm not an attorney but when I look at the 8 "arguments" above no judicial scholarship. No. 4 is pathetic. No. 5 plainly shows her globalist viewpoint. The only issue that holds water is the issue of a wrongly accused person.

Stopping Sotomayor Nomination: Yes We Can - Here's How

Thanks much to The FreedomMedium for offering this information. If you have a blog, please grab this for a post and help get the word out.

Sotomayor Nomination to U.S. Supreme Court: Yes We Can Stop it!

The FreedomMedium YES WE CAN! Damnit, We CAN stop Sotomayor! YES WE CAN! May 31, 2009

Most of the you who are reading this can probably stop reading right now.

Because unless you are ready to get the hell off of your dead butt and actually DO something, reading this is just going to be a waste of your time.

For the rest of you, there IS a way to stop Sonia Sotomayor from being appointed to the Supreme Court.

Seven Senators need to show some courage, they need to forget this crap about Sotomayors’ nomination being a foregone conclusion.

There are seven Republicans who are members of the Senate Committee of the Judiciary. They are:

Tom Coburn(R-OK) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-5754

John Cornyn(R-TX) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-2924

Lindsey Graham(R-SC) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-5972

Chuck Grassely(R-IA) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-3744

Orrin G. Hatch(R-UT) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-5251

Jon Kyl(R-AZ) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-4521

Jeff Sessions(R-AL) Click Here for e-mail Senate Office Phone Number (202) 224-4124

You can (and should) make your voice heard, even if your senator isn’t listed above.

Click here to find contact information for your Senator

The phone number for the main switchboard is (202) 224-3121

I’m not lisiting the information for the Democrats who are members of the committee, I feel pretty strongly that they will vote in favor of Sotomayor, regardless of what they may hear from their constituents. And we don’t need them.

According to Senate Judiciary Committee Rule IV:

“Debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.”

This means that if no Republican members of the committee vote in favor of further debate, Sotomayors’ nomination is dead in the water!!!!

If your Senator is not on the list, contact the Senator for your state and make your feelings known, these people do talk to each other.

For those of you whose Senator IS on the list, when you call or e-mail your Senator urging a vote against Sotomayor, hit them where a politician really feels it.

Tell them to forget this claptrap of being labeled as an obstructionist if they fail to go along with voting in favor of Sotomayor.

Make them aware of what voter backlash really is.

Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that if they fail to do the right thing, not only will you not vote for them the next time they are up for re-election, you will work actively for whoever is running against them!

Barack Obama is testing the Republican Party, thinking they will roll over and play dead on this issue.

And if they do, not only will he have been given a mandate for whatever socialist schemes he wants to ram down America’s throat for the rest of his administration, he will have a judge sitting on the Supreme Court who will carry on his legacy long after he is out of office.

Reject the GOP: Sharing the Disgust No. 3 - Rush Limbaugh is the Conservative Message

Number 3, of who knows how many. As a conservative, my husband and I feel we're marinating in disgust at the GOP and the RNC. I find my friends feel the same. I think sharing our disgust and our rejection of the GOP and the RNC is a good idea. Maybe it will inspire you and maybe you will realize you are not alone. This is not about a third party, as I have no clear opinion about the wisdom of that idea. This is only about rejecting the GOP, and letting them know why we think they are the curse of conservatism.

Rush Limbaugh Conservative Message

Here's some disgust I found as I was visiting around and I'm sharing it with you: FOX Nation printed a segment from Rush Limbaugh's show on May 27th. I'm assuming this is a message Rush wants to get out, so I too am taking his intellectual property "for the good of the people." The message to the GOP is "Go after Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and let America know who she is, which has nothing to do with the fact that she is a female and Hispanic." We do not care about her "life story." We may admire it, as we admire all who have worked hard to overcome obstacles, but her life story has nothing to do with her judicial philosophy. Our objection to her has everything to do with her judicial philosophy. Wake-up GOP!

*****

Rush Limbaugh May 27, 2009 RUSH: You know what my problem is, folks? I want to be very honest. I have never been an oppressed minority, even though I am in a minority. I don't think like one. Conservatism is an oppressed minority today. The Republican Party is an oppressed minority. The only problem I have is I don't think that way. But they all do. When you're an oppressed minority, what do you do? You willingly go to the back of the bus and you willingly shut up and you willingly don't make waves. If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party. If ever we needed to start marching for freedom and constitutional rights, it's for the Republican Party. The Republican Party is today's oppressed minority, and it knows how to behave as one. It shuts up. It doesn't cross bridges; it doesn't run into the Bull Connors of the Democrat Party; it is afraid of the fire hoses and the dogs, it's compliant. The Republican Party today has become totally complacent. They are an oppressed minority; they know their position; they know their place. They go to the back of the bus. They don't use the right restroom and the right drinking fountain, and they shut up. I don't think this way. I don't think of myself as an oppressed minority or as a member of an oppressed minority, and I hope I never do think of myself as one. I'm just an American. Truth is the truth. I'm an enlightened individual, and an enlightened individual is one who seeks truth. Barack Obama is not an enlightened individual. He is a narcissist. Barack Obama seeks himself, seeks adoration, adulation. He's like narcissists. He's stuck on his own reflection in the mirror, in a pool of water. He's not substantive. He sees himself the way he sees a reflection of himself, and he wants everybody else to see him the same way. Barack Obama thinks of himself as a member of an oppressed minority, but he's not taking it, he's fighting back. He's going to go so far as to desecrate the Constitution to address his grievances. The Republican Party, they've mastered it, they've got it down pat. Washington, DC, may as well be -- (interruption) what, Snerdley? Washington, DC, is the Old South for Republicans, if you want to draw the analogy. They have gotten comfortable being an oppressed minority and they play the game; they don't speak out; they shut up. And when they do get gutsy and try to shut up or speak up, they do so in a way that won't offend anybody. The Wall Street Journal, November 15th, 2003, Review and Outlook: "'Why The Democrats Borked Estrada, In Their Own Words' -- Now that the Senate has concluded its 30-hour talkathon on judicial filibusters, we thought readers might like to peer inside the filibustering Democratic mind, such as it is. This plunge into the murky deep comes from staff strategy memos we've obtained from the days when Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001-02. Or, rather, appeared to run the committee. Their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over -- and which Bush judges to confirm or not. Here are some excerpts." This is a memo to Dick Durbin. "You are scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with the judicial nomination process. The leaders will likely include: Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), and Judy Lichtman (National Partnership). ... The primary focus will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent." November 7th, 2001, memo to Senator Durbin. "The groups singled out three -- Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit) -- as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (DC Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible." There are other memos in the story to Senator Kennedy telling him who to meet with and how to react and how to behave. But here's a memo to Dick Durbin from the special interest group saying that Miguel Estrada on the DC circuit must be opposed because he's Latino. Why? The Democrats get away with opposing people because they're Latino. We get punished if we oppose somebody because they're Latino. And we have to shut up because somebody's Latino. We have gone out, we've had two people in our party literally, John McCain and George W. Bush, grant amnesty to how many millions of illegal Hispanics in the country. Did it get anybody anywhere, electorally? Estrada, nominated for a high court position, Alberto Gonzales, they were opposed because they're Latino, by the Democrats. Now, they didn't say so publicly. These are internal memos. But the Democrats can oppose Latinos left and right and they can oppose blacks left and right, and they never seem to pay a price for doing that. Why is that? Why does nobody get concerned if Democrats may be alienating voters from these various groups? Why when they opposed Clarence Thomas did they not suffer one loss of a black vote? Why? And yet the Republicans have been made to believe, in their currently extinct status, that opposing Sonia Sotomayor simply because she's Latina will ruin their chances for the Hispanic vote, a vote they don't have anyway and a vote they're not going to get this way. They're behaving like an oppressed minority. Whatever their masters tell them to say or do, not say or don't do, they say or don't say, they don't do. They are entirely compliant. They're obedient. The Republican Party today is totally obedient. Now, there are some exceptions. We got some great conservatives in the House. I'm talking about the old guard, country club blue-blooders that are trying to define the party and run it. They're obedient. They are so obedient that many of them endorse and vote the Democrat candidate. That's how obedient they are to their masters. They have mastered the art of thinking and acting as oppressed minorities who are not interested, by the way, in emancipation or freedom. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Lou in Pullman, Washington, as we stay on the phones. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello. CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for a great 20 years. RUSH: Yes, sir. CALLER: I want to get right to it. I want to take issue with my fellow subscriber Nancy. I think that we ought to be just like the Democrats. I think we should ignore gender, race, class and sexual orientation when the person that we're looking at doesn't agree with us. That's what they do. Look at Clarence Thomas. RUSH: We should emulate the Democrats and ignore what? CALLER: Gender, race, class and sexual orientation when the person doesn't agree with us. RUSH: Well, who's doing that now? CALLER: Well, the Democrats. RUSH: No. No, no, no. Tell me the Republicans who are opposing Sonia Sotomayor because she's a woman or a Latina? CALLER: Oh, none. But I think we should ignore the fact that she is and go right for the issues. RUSH: Well, it doesn't matter if we do. The media is all over the place with the fact she's a Latina, the first one ever nominated, first one nominated to the Supreme Court, the first woman, her compelling story. We're the ones that do ignore this stuff. We're the ones to whom none of this does matter. CALLER: Right. But my point is that Nancy thinks it's going to come back and bite us, but the Democrats do it all the time and it doesn't seem to bite them. RUSH: Yes, that's been my point all day. CALLER: Absolutely. I've been on hold for a long time. RUSH: I thought you said you agreed with Nancy. CALLER: No, no, no, no, no. RUSH: Oh. CALLER: Nancy, I want to take issue with her. RUSH: Oh. I thought you were disagreeing with me. CALLER: No, no. RUSH: Well, I apologize for the contentiousness. CALLER: No. RUSH: So you're just echoing what I said? CALLER: Yes. I think we ought to ignore -- they always do one thing. They take into account gender, race, and class. RUSH: Well, that's the point I've been making all day. These people, the Democrats can trash all kinds of blacks, minorities, Latinos, and it never seems to hurt them. Why does it only hurt us? When we do ignore it, it's not a factor to us. I couldn't care less, for example, where Sonia Sotomayor came from, what her race or gender is. She's a disaster on the basis of her history as a judge. Don in Vermilion, Ohio, nice to have on you on the EIB Network, sir, hello. CALLER: Thank you, it's a pleasure to speak with you. My point was in regard to the e-mail that you read earlier. From the standpoint of a conservative there's no such thing as an Hispanic vote, an Afro-American vote, a Native American vote, it doesn't make any difference. It is the same and it's so basic, just like you have been saying, it's so fundamental. I don't understand what's confusing about this. There's never been any question what the conservative response to anything should be because the fundamentals of conservatism are what our foundation is and there's never anything that's nebulous about that, very easy to understand. RUSH: Well, you're right. Let me paraphrase this. You're right as far as describing conservatives. But you're wrong if you want to include the Republican Party in it today, at least -- again, I better specify which Republicans I'm talking about. I'm talking about the old guard, the Tom Ridge, Colin Powell, the country club blue-blood, the Arlen Specter types. They're the ones who do want to do identity politics. Now, you say that conservatives, you know, the fundamental conservative does not look at people and see Hispanic or white, black, woman or whatever. And I know what you mean by that. You mean by that that as one who believes in the conservative ideology, we see people as people, we see people as Americans. We want a great country, and, as such, we want everybody to succeed. We want everybody to be as good as they can. We want everybody to strive to be the best they can, and in the process, we want to get all kinds of obstacles out of their way. We have faith, we have belief in ordinary people accomplishing extraordinary things, just get out of their way, inspire them and motivate them and they'll do it. The liberal looks at people with utter contempt, condescension and contempt, doesn't believe people are inherently good or qualified or competent or able to overcome these obstacles in life. By definition, the liberal who seeks power over people thus places these obstacles and makes people dependent and then says you can't do it without me. The Republican Party has bought into the notion here that we need to get that segment of the vote and then that segment of the vote and then that segment of the vote or population if they are to win. The Democrat Party, for almost its entirety has been a coalition of various interest groups. In fact, it's an amalgamation of coalitions. You've had Big Labor, you have feminism, you have Big Environmentalism, you have anti-capitalist, and they all have their own single issue pet peeves, but the thing that unites them is their belief and love of huge government controlling everybody else's lives. The Republican Party and the conservative movement was not put together with this kind of attitude, it's not put together with that kind of mind-set. Controlling people's lives? The basic difference is Democrats live and breathe, liberals live and breathe and they go to school to get trained to work in and control government. On the other hand what we want to do is reduce the size of government. We don't want to take over. We don't want to work there. We want to be in the private sector. So we're already at a bit of a disadvantage because their life, their world, is built around government. Ours is built around avoiding it, you know, making it as constitutional as it can be and function as it's constitutionally directed to, but then that's it. The liberals look at it in an entirely different way. Let me read something here real quick. Vin Weber this afternoon on Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, she spoke with Vin Weber, Republican strategist. She said, "Is there a real pitfall here for the Republican Party going after Sonia Sotomayor on her ethnicity when we've seen how Hispanic voters have flocked to Obama, in a real change from the way many more supported George W. Bush." WEBER: The front pages of just about every paper in this country today described this as President Obama picking the first Hispanic justice, and Republicans should be very wary of challenging that. Furthermore, when Republicans get holier-than-thou about identity politics, I remember how proud Republicans were when President Reagan named the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. We were proud that we broke that ground as Republicans. They'd better not start abandoning that and start pointing fingers about identity politics to the first Hispanic to go into the court or they're gonna find themselves in trouble. RUSH: I guess we have to throw Vin Weber in the group who's now a member of the oppressed minority. Vin, I don't know anybody who opposes her on ethnic grounds. I don't know anybody. I guess what these people are afraid of is that any opposition to her will be said to be based on ethnic grounds. Okay, so, to avoid them saying that about us, we won't say anything. We'll just throw in the towel. And then when we get our chance we're going to nominate a Latino -- oh, we did that, and it didn't help us. And then we're going to nominate a black -- oh, we did that. Didn't help us! This is not complicated to me, but see, I don't think like an oppressed minority. RUSH: Who said this? "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." And who said this? "Pressure makes diamonds." Same person uttered both quotes. Greetings. Great to have you here. It's El Rushbo on the cutting edge of societal evolution, on the most listened to radio talk show in America. Telephone number if you want to join us is 800-282-2882. E-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com. "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." How did you know that, Brian? How in the world did you know that? What, did somebody Google it real quick in there? That's right, it's general George Patton who said both. "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." Why am I saying this? Well, if the Republicans want to start thinking like Democrats, somebody's not thinking, and we know the Democrats are thinking and strategizing. "Pressure makes diamonds." That is also from George Patton. You know, I sit here, ladies and gentlemen, as I think about all of this debating within the GOP and with the Democrats. We conservatives, we really do have the best arguments. We have the most responsible policies. We have the most humane principles. The more we confront these people, the more we debate, the more we expose, the clearer that will become, not just to us, but to others. And that's why we have to keep it up. I'm getting a lot of e-mails, "Rush, please don't quit, please don't stop!" I have no intention of it, folks. I was telling Snerdley here during the break, I fully expect at some point in the near future to receive a phone call, a private phone call off air from somebody, somewhere in elected Republican Party politics asking me to tone it down. I fully expect this to happen. They are scared. This Supreme Court nomination, coupled with the election of Obama, this is, to them, these oppressed minorities rising and up finally saying we're not taking it anymore and you guys are going to find out what it's like to be an oppressed minority, and they're scared and they're willing to be oppressed minorities, the Republicans. They're willing to think that way. On the other hand, if we surrender to the left, if we surrender to these old guard moderates in the Republican Party who want to surrender to the left, none of this would be happening. Even in this, what do the moderates offer? They just repeat their platitudes, they tell us to keep quiet. They don't even want the debate. That scares them. The old guard moderates in the Republican Party have no faith in who they are because they have no idea what principles that they will defend. They don't even know what principles they will surrender. They have no confidence in who they are and what the nation is, but we do, we conservatives do. We are overflowing with confidence about who we are and what this nation is. But the Republican Party old guard, the blue-blood country clubbers do not. BREAK TRANSCRIPT: RUSH: Englewood, Florida. This is Tom. I'm glad you waited, sir. Great to have you with us. Hello. CALLER: Great to have you with me also. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: I agree with you 110% on the Sotomayor deal. The only thing is, I think that we need an attack dog on this situation, somebody in Congress that can take her over the coals just the way they did Bork and as you described. Look, they're gonna think of us anyhow has hypocrites and homophobes and racists so who cares anymore, you know, let's go after it, let the news media do what they want to do. RUSH: You know, there's -- CALLER: The only thing -- RUSH: Wait a minute. That's an interesting point. How can the Republican Party get in worse shape than they're already in? That's kind of what you're saying, how can they get themselves in any worse shape than they're in now? So what you're saying is a tried-and-true principle. If they're going to rip you anyway, at least tell the truth. CALLER: Exactly. You know, and I'll tell you who was on the other day on your show, I was listening, was Cheney, Liz Cheney. RUSH: Yeah. CALLER: I couldn't believe how easily she made those limp liberals look bad, you know. Too bad she's not a Senator. I'd like to see her question this woman. RUSH: Well, Liz right now is focused on the foreign policy aspects of the Obama administration. But I know what you're saying. CALLER: She's bright. RUSH: She's bright, but she's showing how it's done. She's going on television and she's giving a class, a tutorial on how not to accept the premises of the media and the left in these interviews. Look, I don't want to dishearten you out there, Tom, but there is no indication I see that this attack dog you envision exists. I don't see it. I see Chihuahuas. END RUSH LIMBAUGH Read Rush's background material here, and his 1997 prediction about Sonia Sotomayor here. Related: Rejecting the GOP: Sharing the Disgust - No. 1 Rejecting the GOP: Sharing the Disgust - No. 2